[JSP 12.

1 (2001) 65-84]
ISSN 0951-8207

CAIN AND ABEL IN THE LIGHT OF ENVY:

A STUDY IN THE HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION
OF ENVY IN GENESIS 4.1-16
Angela Y. Kim
Department of Theology, 130 Malloy Hall,
University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA

Abstract
This article discusses the use of envy in the history of the interpretation of
Gen. 4.1-16. The theme of envy is given greater prominence in post-biblical
interpretations of the story of Cain and Abel than in the biblical narrative.
The magnification of envy is present in translation equivalents, character
revisions and the incorporation of legendary accretions. This magnification
of envy serves to deflect attention away from God who chooses, in a capricious way, one sacrifice over another.

1. Introduction
Expansions and reworkings of a biblical text by ancient interpreters generally arise from a perceived peculiarity in the biblical text.1 In the case of
Cain and Abel (Gen. 4.1-16), there are two problems in the narrative: the
first problem exists on a theological level since it concerns Gods seeming
capriciousness in the rejection of one sacrifice and not the other, and the
second problem exists on the narrative level and concerns the lack of contact between the brothers (the lack of a murder motive).2 These perceived
1. See J.L. Kugel, In Potiphars House: The Interpretive Life of Biblical Texts
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994), pp. 247-51.
2. YHWH appears capricious if one considers the possibility that Cains sacrifice
was comparable to Abels. This is suggested by H.B. Huffmon, Cain: The Arrogant
Sufferer, in A. Kort and S. Morshauser (eds.), Biblical and Related Studies Presented
to Samuel Iwry (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985), pp. 109-13. Huffmon writes that
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002, The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX and
370 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA.

66

Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 12.1 (2001)

problems give rise to the creative expansion and reworking of the story by
later interpreters. One way of addressing this two-fold problem is to recast
the story in light of sibling rivalry and envy. By so doing, ancient interpreters introduce conflict and simultaneously deflect attention away from
the more troubling problem of YHWHs capriciousness. In this article, I
will demonstrate how these two problems are mitigated by the magnification of envy which makes its entrance into the story through the use of
translation equivalents, characterizations and legendary accretions.
2. Sibling Rivalry and the Phenomenon of Envy
Stories of rivalry between siblings are common material in ancient myths3
and find a place in the Hebrew story of Cain and Abel (Gen. 4.1-16). The
pattern of rivalry and its consequences in the Patriarchal narratives and
the Deuteronomistic History is best shown in a table of corresponding
events from biblical narratives selected ad hoc (see Fig. 1).4
This table shows that narratives about the key heroes of Israels history
follow a general pattern of limited good, violent conflict between brothers,
and resolution by physical separation. In the case of Cain and Abel, Abimelech and the 70 brothers, and Amnon and Absalom, the physical separation between the brothers is death. While the Hebrew text does not tell
us the means by which Cain murdered Abel, it does state that Abel died a
bloody death and not a clean death by suffocation ( Myq(c Kyx) ymd lwq
hmd)h-Nm yl), Gen. 4.10). To a lesser extent, the threat of death is present in each of the following instances: the land is unable to support both
Abraham and Lot, Jacob is tricked into thinking that Joseph was devoured
by wild animals and Esau consoles himself with the thought of Jacobs
death. The primary resolution of conflict is physical separation, the most
extreme form of which is death. Cain and Abel should be understood in
Cain had an expectation that YHWH would accept his sacrifice as well. On the storys
lack of a murder motive, see J.L. Kugel, Cain and Abel in Fact and Fable: Genesis
4:1-16, in R. Brooks and J.J. Collins (eds.) Hebrew Bible or Old Testament? Studying
the Bible in Judaism and Christianity (Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity, 5; Notre
Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1990), pp. 176-79.
3. The Egyptian Story of Two Brothers, in ANET, I, pp. 12-16, and the Roman
legend of Romulus and Remus are two non-Israelite examples of sibling rivalry in the
ancient world.
4. See also the discussion by M. McEntire, The Blood of Abel: The Violent Plot in
the Hebrew Bible (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1999), which decribes the
story line of violence in the Hebrew Scriptures.
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.

Cain and Abel

Genesis 4.1-16

Fratricide

Cain kills Abel

Violence

Resolution

Jacob flees to Haran

Threat of death

Jacob deceives Isaac

and receives the birthright and blessing intended for Esau

Judges 9

Amnon and Absalom

Sisters virtue

Fratricide

Fratricide

Joseph is sold into slav- Abimelech kills the 70 Absalom kills Amnon
ery. Jacob is told that brothers
Joseph is dead

Bloody robe

Joseph receives coat Abimelech gains favor Amnon rapes Tamar

and a dream about his of the lords of Shechem
favored status over his
brothers and parents

Kingship

Joseph and his brothers Abimelech and the 70 Amnon and Absalom
brothers

Genesis 37

Birthright and blessing Jacobs favor

Jacob and Esau

Genesis 2728

Figure 1. Sibling Rivalry: Corresponding Events from Biblical Narratives

Rejected sacrifice

Conflict

Limited Good Gods favor

Brothers

Pattern

68

Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 12.1 (2001)

this context of conflict, physical separation and violence, even though

envy itself is not presented as the explicit motive for the murder.
A variation of this pattern occurs in stories which describe the founding
of a civilization on the heels of fratricide.5 This is represented in the myth
of Romes origins with Romulus and Remus and it is this pattern that
emerges in the Cain and Abel story. According to Gen. 4.17, Cain founded
a city after the murder. Rivalry and the first urban center are not unrelated
phenomena. It is possible that Israels story of the first fratricide may be
understood as a variation of the myth of founding civilization on a murder.6
Rivalry and fratricide are linked to a struggle to possess resources, or an
envy over limited goods.
The concept of limited goods presumes that all desirable goods are in
short supply.7 Within social groups of limited goods, conflict springs from
the envy of another persons possessions, either material goods or status.
Aristotle writes, they envy those who are near [to them] with respect to
time, place, age, and status. Thus it was said, the kinsman knows how to
envy .8 Sociological studies tell us the following about envy:9 (1) it
5. R. Girard, Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World (trans. S. Bann and
M. Meteer; Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1987) cites other myths which
link the origins of a people or civilization to a founding murder. See also J.G. Williams,
The Bible, Violence, and the Sacred: Liberation from the Myth of Sanctioned Violence
(San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991), who applies Girards work to the Bible.
6. Sociologically, this type of permanent separation is a way of alleviating the stress
upon the environment when the kin-group becomes too large. The pattern of envy and
sibling rivalry is symptomatic of the human condition and sociologically functions as a
way of ensuring survival. When a group grows to a certain size, the environment is no
longer able to sustain life for all of its members. This stress upon the environment leads
to a conflict and fission in the community at which point the splinter group seeks to
establish itself in a different locale. See A.H. Goodman, Health, Adaptation, and Maladaptation in Past Societies, in H. Bush and M. Zvelebil (eds.), Health in Past Societies: Biocultural Interpretations of Human Skeletal Remains in Archaeological Contexts
(BARev International Series, 567; Boston: Tempus Reparatum, 1991), pp. 31-38. Goodmans article talks about the different ways humans adapt to the environment and other
biological stressors such as disease. Goodman writes, Cultural systems are generally
effective in buffering environmental constraints and stressors, or removing the individuals in a society from contact with the stressor (p. 31).
7. See the classic formulation of the concept of the limited good in G.M. Foster,
Peasant Society and the Image of Limited Good, in J.M. Potter, M.N. Diaz and G.M.
Foster (eds.), Peasant Society: A Reader (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1967), pp. 30410.
8. See Aristotle, Art of Rhetoric [hereafter Rhetoric] 2.10.5. He goes on to say,
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.

KIM Cain and Abel in the Light of Envy

69

occurs naturally in familial situations as a struggle over a limited good, (2)

it is a violent and destructive emotion,10 and (3) it is aggravated by close
proximity.11 The typical resolution of conflict is physical separation and in
the case of Gen. 4.1-16, the rival is permanently eliminated.
3. The Problem of Gods Capriciousness and
Cains Motivation for Murder
a. The Problem of Gods Capriciousness
The biblical story about the first fratricide is problematic because it projects a troubling picture of YHWH. By accepting the sacrifice of one brother
and rejecting the sacrifice of the other, YHWH appears to act capriciously.
Feldman writes the following:
towards those of them who endeavor for the same things, it is necessarily the case that
they feel the most envy towards them (Aristotle, Rhetoric 2.10.6). In his treatise Brotherly Love, Plutarch advises brothers to pursue distinct professions in order to avoid
sibling rivalry.
9. Much of the information on envy relies upon the following work by H. Schoeck,
Envy: A Theory of Social Behaviour (Indianapolis: Liberty Press, 1987). Schoeck writes
as a comparative ethnographer who demonstrates the existence of envy in present day
societies, frequently including data from Pacific cultures. According to Schoeck, the
phenomenon of envy is first learned through direct experience of it within the primary
social group of the family. He writes, comparative ethnology leaves no room for doubt
as to the universality of sibling jealousy (p. 78). See also the study by G.M. Foster,
The Anatomy of Envy, Current Anthropology 13 (1972), pp. 165-86, whose analysis
compares the attitudes towards the possession and consumption of food in various cultures. More recently see A.C. Hagedorn and J.H. Neyrey, It was out of envy that they
Handed Jesus Over (Mark 15.10): The Anatomy of Envy and the Gospel of Mark,
JSNT 69 (1998), pp. 15-56. See also the model of envy described in J.H. Neyrey and
R.L. Rohrbaugh, He must increase, I must decrease (John 3:30): A Cultural and Social Interpretation, forthcoming in CBQ.
10. A corollary of the rivalry over limited goods is violence. According to Schoeck,
the fear of violent envy between siblings is the motivation behind their separation in
various cultures. See Schoeck, Envy, p. 79, where he writes that the Dobuans in the Pacific practice the separation of brothers and do not permit post-pubescent boys to sleep
together because of the belief that poisonous blood would pass from one to the other
and thus lead to fratricide.
11. Sociological studies have demonstrated that close proximity between brothers
aggravates rivalry and envy between them. See Schoeck, Envy, p. 85, who writes that
among the aborigines of Central Australia, potential feelings of sibling rivalry are
assuaged by eating alternate offspring, thereby ensuring proper spacing between the
children.
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.

70

Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 12.1 (2001)

One of the difficulties in the biblical text, pointed out by such non-believers
as the Emperor Julian (Contra Galilaeos 346E-347C) and Hiwi al-Balkhiis
that G-d is apparently capricious in accepting the sacrifice of Abel while
rejecting that of Cain (Genesis 4:4-5).12

The narrative projects the theologically troubling possibility that God is

capricious insofar as the reader is given no explanation for his rejection of
Cains sacrifice. The murder of Abel casts further shadows upon YHWHs
justice since he does nothing to prevent it. This is aggravated by the fact
that YHWH decides to let Cain, the murderer, live in exile with a mitigated
punishment (a protective sign).
In later Patristic writings, however, the story is cited as a classic example of the evil of envy, with very little trace of the problem of YHWHs capriciousness. Genesis 4.1-16 is offered as the classic example of envy by
Patristic writers in moral exhortation against that emotion.13 Both Basil14
and Cyprian15 point to Cain and Abel as the prime illustration of the destructive consequences of envy. Augustine uses the story as his interpretive
lens in his discussion of the fratricide that lies at the mythic origins of
Rome and he too reads the story as a case of envy.16 Furthermore, Jacob
of Edessa includes envy among the seven transgressions of Cain in his
exegesis of Gen. 4.15.17 Christian interpretations of Gen. 4.1-16 are riddled
12. See L. Feldman, Studies in Josephus Rewritten Bible (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998),
p. 8. Feldman goes on to describe Josephus apologetic approach to the Cain and Abel
story with some corroborating references to Philo as well.
13. The moralizing tendency of Christian interpreters may also be a direct consequence of texts like Mt. 23.35 and 1 Jn 3.10-12 which identify Cain as wicked or
evil. While these New Testament references to Gen. 4.1-16 do not explicitly cite
envy they do however contribute to the overall negative characterization of Cain in
patristic writings. See Kugel, Cain and Abel in Fact and Fable, pp. 181-84.
14. In his treatise Concerning Envy (in Ascetical Works [trans. M.M. Wagner;
Fathers of the Church, 9; New York: Fathers of the Church, 1950], pp. 465-66), Basil
writes that envy corrodes the soul.
15. In his treatise Jealousy and Envy (in Treatises [trans. R.J. Defarrari; Fathers of
the Church, 36; New York: Fathers of the Church, 1958], pp. 96-297), Cyprian (third
century CE) cites Cain as the envious brother who acts unjustly and he urges his readers
to beware of so great an evil destructiveness.
16. See Augustine, The City of God (in Writings of Saint Augustine [trans. G.G.
Walsh and G. Monahan; Fathers of the Church, 14; 17 vols.; New York: Fathers of the
Church, 1952], VII, p. 420).
17. See D. Kruisheer, Reconstructing Jacob of Edessas Scholia, in J. Frishman
and L. van Rompay (eds.), The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.

KIM Cain and Abel in the Light of Envy

71

with the notion that it was Cains envy that led to the murder of Abel.18 It
is interesting that almost no trace of the problem of YHWHs capriciousness remains in these later patristic interpretations.
b. Cains Motivation for Murder: The Moment of Conflict
Despite these later associations between Gen. 4.1-16 and envy, the word
itself ()nq) does not appear in the Hebrew text. Nor is it the case that the
story exhibits any explicit rivalry over common resources. Perhaps following advice similar to that given by Plutarch in his treatise, Brotherly
Love, Cain and Abel pursue distinct professionsone brother becomes a
farmer and the other a shepherd.19 Implicitly, it is possible to conclude that
Cain was envious of his brother because Abels sacrifice was pleasing to
God; however, this is never explicitly stated in the Hebrew text. The suggestion that Cain was governed by envy is a natural association from an
etymological interpretation of Cains name, Nyq, which was thought to
derive from the root for )nq (envy) or hnq (acquire).
Even if one assumes that Cain is driven by envy on account of his failed
sacrifice, it does not necessarily follow that he should kill Abel who is not
directly responsible for the failure of his sacrifice. The narrative itself does
not suggest that Cain offered a flawed sacrifice.20 One might expect Cain
to complain to YHWH over the unjust rejection of his sacrifice, perhaps in
a manner like that found in the book of Job.21 The crime however seems
to be disproportionate to the events of the narrative.
The brevity of the Hebrew text and the absence of an explicit murder
motive contribute to the problem of Gods capriciousness in Gen. 4.1-16.
Interpretation: A Collection of Essays (Traditio Exegetica Graeca, 5; Leuven: Peeters,
1997), pp. 187-96 (192), where he notes Jacobs philological basis behind his exegesis.
18. Others, not mentioned above, include John Chrysostom, Didymus of Alexandria, Basil of Seleucia, Cyril of Alexandria, Cosmas Indicopleustes, Narsai, Jacob of
Serugh, Symmachus. See J.B. Glenthj, Cain and Abel in Syriac and Greek Writers
(4th6th Centuries) (CSCO, 567; Leuven: Peeters, 1997), pp. 146-47.
19. See J.D. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1993), p. 73, who correctly criticizes the over-simplification of the Cain and Abel
story to the dichotomy of pastoral nomad and agriculturalist.
20. See, for example, the discussion found in Levenson, The Death and Resurrection, pp. 71-73.
21. See the parallel between Gen. 4.7 and Job 11.13a, 15a, and Gen. 4.7 and Job
11.14, pointed out by W.M. Clark, The Flood and the Structure of the Pre-Patriarchal
History, ZAW 83 (1971), pp. 184-211 (199 n. 6).
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.

72

Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 12.1 (2001)

The narrative escalates to the climactic killing scene which is described

with a paucity of detail. Genesis 4.8 is a key verse in the story where the
events change from bad to worse; Cain changes from an angry brooding
man with a gloomy face to the first murderer. In v. 8, the Hebrew narrative
is problematic because no words are supplied even though it is written,
and Cain said to Abel his brother (wyx) lbh-l) Nyq rm)yw).
No explicit motive is given in the narrative for the ensuing murder.22
Even if Cains anger is ignited by YHWHs preference for Abels sacrifice,
Abels murder remains problematic because there is no explicit conflict
between the two. There is no open hostility between Cain and Abel, nor
do they engage in lengthy conversation. According to the MT, the only
introduction of dialogue between the two in v. 8a (lbh l) Nyq rm)yw
wyx)) is left in the lurch, abruptly followed by the phrase, while they were
in [the] field (hd#& Mtwyhb). While other ancient translations provide
some variation of let us go to the field, the Hebrew text tells us that no
words were exchanged between the two.23 Furthermore, Cains words, let
us go to the field are an invitation and not argumentative. Even if the narrative originally included the words let us go to the field, the subsequent
fratricide is disproportionate to the level of interaction between the brothers.
There are two possibile explanations for the reading found in MT: either
it preserves the more original reading or the words were lost through scribal
error. It is possible to understand the Hebrew of Gen. 4.8 is as a case of
lectio difficilior preferenda est. Perhaps the words found in LXX, SP and
Syr are secondary to the tradition preserved in the MT for it is easier to
insert a quotation and more difficult to explain why it would have been
removed. It is probable that the ancient scribes and translators read the
Hebrew and assumed that something was missing. It would be logical for
them to reconstruct the missing words as let us go to the field given the
subsequent phrase, while they were in [the] field.24 As we shall see,
22. See Kugel, Cain and Abel in Fact and Fable, pp. 176-79, where he describes
the lack of Cains motive. In what is otherwise a primarily psycho-analytic article
written from a seemingly sympathetic view towards Cain, M.I. Gruber, in The Tragedy
of Cain and Abel: A Case of Depression, JQR 69 (1978), pp. 89-97 (96), points out
that Gen. 4.8 suggests that there was no explicit motive for the murder which was
something out of the blue, something totally irrational.
23. The LXX preserves the phrase let us go to the field, which is mirrored in the
Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) and Old Latin. A variation of this appears in the Syriac
Peshita (Syr) which states, )tOQPL )drN (let us go down to the valley). See
S.P. Brock, Jewish Traditions in Syriac Sources, JJS 30 (1979), pp. 216-17.
24. See such a suggestion in J.L. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.

KIM Cain and Abel in the Light of Envy

73

other ancient authorities attest the early existence of the shorter Hebrew
text.
The shorter Hebrew text was the received text of Jerome who claims
that the LXX and the Samaritan are secondary:
Et dixit Cain ad Abel fratrem suum. Subauditur, ea quae locutus est Dominus. Superfluum ergo est, quod in Samaritanorum et nostro volumine [LXX]
reperitur: Transeamus in campum.25

Similarly, the scholion based on information from Origen states that the
LXX clause let us go down to the field, is a secondary accretion to the
Hebrew original.26 This suggests that there is some evidence for a shorter
Hebrew text. The reading found in MT is attested in 4QGenb as well27 and
it is very likely that this was the Hebrew textus receptus for Jerome and
others. In other words, the shorter reading was an authoritative version in
the ancient world and this reading would have been available to ancient
interpreters of the story. The lack of any dialogue between Cain and Abel
that we see in the Hebrew text of Gen. 4.8 very likely generated a number
of ancient interpretations.
It is also possible that the ancient interpreters associated the consonantal
form rm)yw in Gen. 4.8 with notions of haughty or arrogant behavior. The
root rm) carries the connotation of arrogant or haughty behavior in many
as it Was at the Start of the Common Era (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1998), pp. 160-61.
25. See Origenis Hexapla. I. Prolegomena, GenesisEsther (ed. F. Field; 2 vols.;
London: Clarendon Press, 1875), p. 18 n. 15.
26. This scholion reads, En tw Ebraikw to lexqen upo tou Kain proj ton
Abel ou gegraptai, kai oi peri Akulan edeican: oti en apo kruyw fasin oi
Ebraioi keisqai touto entauqa kata thn twn O / ekdoxhn; roughly translated as,
in the Hebrew, the utterance from Cain to Abel was not written. And those [notations]
around Aquila also show that the Hebrews say to propose this [is] there by means of an
apocryphal source according to the transmission by those of the LXX (Origenis
Hexapla, p. 18). In a footnote, Field writes that the scholion based on information from
Origen was mistranslated by a previous editor of the Hexapla, D. Bernardus de
Montfaucon (1713), who wrote that Aquila has the extra words found in the LXX. The
following clause, oi peri Akulan edeican, was mistranslated by a former editor of the
Hexapla as Aquila tamen exhibet (however Aquila shows). In his editorial note,
Field writes, cum potius sonent, id quod etiam docet Aquilae versio (when these
words rather mean, that which Aquilas version also shows, i.e. that the Hebrew also
did not have the extra words) (Origenis Hexapla, p. 18 n. 16).
27. J.R. Davila, Qumran Cave 4. VII. Genesis to Numbers (DJD, 12; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), pp. 31-78.
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.

74

Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 12.1 (2001)

Semitic languages.28 Thus, the ancient interpreters may have understood

the consonants wyx) lbh-l) Nyq rm)yw as Cain acted arrogantly towards
Abel his brother. This rendering of the Hebrew consonants makes the
shorter text intelligible without the direct quotation found in LXX, SP and
Syr. Furthermore, it is fitting given the interpretations of Cain as envious
by nature.
For the purposes of this paper, the discussion over whether or not the
shorter Hebrew text of Gen. 4.8 is more original does not mitigate the fact
that the level of interaction between the brothers is disproportionate to the
ensuing fratricide. The lack of interaction between the brothers underscores the abrupt and unsettling account of the murder in Gen. 4.8b, and
Cain rose up against his brother and he killed him. Whatever dissatisfaction Cain felt towards God or his brother is not expressed fully. The reader
can only infer that Cains violent action arose from an envious anger.
The Palestinian Targums present one way of coping with this two-fold
problem of Gods capriciousness and the lack of conflict prior to the murder. The Targums expand the basic narrative plot by including a lengthy
and heated theological dispute between the brothers after the words, and
Cain said to Abel his brother (wyx) lbh-l) Nyq rm)yw) in Gen. 4.8. The
Palestinian Targums of Pseudo-Jonathan and Neofiti I as well as the
Fragment Targum and the Targum from the Cairo Geniza all include a
theological dispute between Cain and Abel on the justice and mercy of
God in the world.29 It is important to note that the Targums supply a moment of conflict which is not present in the biblical story; they present the
murder as the unfortunate consequence of a heated dispute.30 The Targums
28. I would like to thank Professor J. Kugel (Harvard) for this suggestion.
29. In the dispute, Abel affirms the orthodox stance that God is both just and merciful while Cain assumes the heterodox position that God is not just. For a convenient
synoptic reading of this theological debate, see G. Vermes, The Targumic Versions of
Genesis 4:3-16, in idem, Post-Biblical Jewish Studies (SJLA, 8; Leiden: E.J. Brill,
1975), pp. 92-126; B. Chilton, A Comparative Study of Synoptic Development: The
Dispute Between Cain and Abel in the Palestinian Targums and the Beelzebul Controversy in the Gospels, JBL 101 (1982), pp. 553-62; J.M Bassler, Cain and Abel in the
Palestinian Targums: A Brief Note on an Old Controversy, JSJ 17 (1986), pp. 56-64.
The dispute is also discussed in J.H. Neyrey, Acts 17, Epicureans, and Theodicy: A
Study in Stereotypes, in D.L. Balch et al. (eds.), Greeks, Romans, and Christians:
Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1970), pp. 13033; idem, The Form and Background of the Polemic in 2 Peter, JBL 99 (1980), pp.
412-14.
30. Vermes writes, [t]he aim of the midrash is to explain that the murder of Abel
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.

KIM Cain and Abel in the Light of Envy

75

recast Abels death in a scenario which is primarily a murder of fraternal

conflict, thereby minimizing YHWHs responsibility for the death of Abel.
There are other ways of coping with the problems of Gods capriciousness and the disproportionate lack of interaction between the brothers
prior to the murder. Later interpreters attempt to resolve the problems that
are generated by the brevity of the Hebrew text by magnifying elements of
sibling rivalry and envy between the brothers. By so doing, they deflect
attention away from the more serious problem of YHWHs capriciousness.
4. Methods of Incorporating Rivalry into the Relationship
between Cain and Abel
a. Translation Equivalents
The most logical way to anchor rivalry into the relationship between Cain
andAbel is in the episode of the sacrifices. Envy can be secured quite
easily into the story by suggesting that Cain was envious of Abels superior sacrifice.31 The MT gives no indication that YHWH held Abels sacrifice in higher regard. The MT merely states that the Lord regarded (h(#)
Abels sacrifice but not Cains.32 Some ancient interpreters use this part of
the text as an opportunity to emphasize envy and the LXX facilitates such
interpretations.
The interpretation that Abels sacrifice was superior arises naturally
from the LXX, which uses different translation equivalents for the Hebrew
33
hxnm. This suggests that Cains sacrifice was different either qualitatively or substantially.34 According to the narrative, the brothers are each
was the outcome of a theological dispute (The Targumic Versions of Genesis 4:3-16,
p. 114). See also Kugel, Cain and Abel in Fact and Fable, pp. 177-78.
31. In Gen. R. 22.5, we find that Cains sacrifice was flawed. It states that Cains
sacrifice was from the worthless matter and that Cain was like the evil farmer who
used to eat the first fruits and pay homage to the king with the stunted fruits.
32. The means by which Cain knew that his sacrifice was not accepted is unclear.
There is a tradition that maintains that Abels sacrifice was consumed by fire and Cains
was not. This probably goes back to Theodotion who associated the verb, (#yw with #),
producing the translation, and the Lord consumed with fire, see S. Brock, The Syriac
Fathers on Prayer and the Spiritual Life (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications,
1987), p. 3.
33. Both are presented as comparable offerings (hxnm) even though the cursing of
the ground (hmd)) stated in Gen. 3.17, is a plausible suggestion for why Cains offering
was not accepted.
34. See Philo, Sacr. 52, and Heb. 11.4. In Sacr. 52-54, Philo gives another reason
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.

76

Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 12.1 (2001)

capable of offering up a sacrifice to YHWH. There is no indication that the

animal sacrifice was more precious than the grain sacrifice and it should
be noted that both are required according to cultic laws of the Temple.
The LXXs distinction between the sacrifices of the brothers most likely
generated the kind of interpretation found in Philo. Philo introduces the
notion that Cain did not offer a qualitatively good sacrifice because the
biblical text does not specify that he offered up the first fruits of his harvest. Because the LXX distinguishes between Cain and Abels sacrifices, it
facilitates the interpretation that Cains sacrifice was flawed, thus Cain
was envious of Abels superior sacrifice. More importantly, such an interpretation mitigates the more serious problem of Gods capriciousness for
it provides a justification for YHWHs rejection of Cains sacrifice.
There are additional places where the Greek translation equivalents of
the Hebrew reflect an interpretive bias. In Gen. 4.5, the Hebrew reads
wynp wlpyw d)m Nyql rxyw (and it angered Cain very much and his face
was downcast).35 In the LXX, we find the following: kai\ e0lu/phsen to_n
Kain li/an\ kai\ sune/pesen tw=| prosw/pw| (and it grieved Cain very much
and his countenance was fallen). There is a one to one correspondence to
the Hebrew words in the LXX translation. The Greek equivalent for the
Hebrew rcyw (and it angered) brings the Hebrew text more in line with a
motive of envy. The waw-consecutive verb rxyw (hrx) is well attested
in the Hebrew Bible, with a general sense of burn or kindle and frequently appears as a metaphor for anger. The LXX word e0lu&phsen is not
the stereotypical translation of the Hebrew hrx.36 Of the 67 occurrences
of either hrx or rxyw, a translation of some conjugation of or derivation
from the Greek qumoomai is given 27 times and, with comparable frequency, orgizomai appears in 24 occurrences. Instances of lupew and its
derivations are relatively rare with 7 attestations. In Aristotles Rhetoric,
luph is a term used in conjunction with envy. He writes:
for Cains flawed sacrifice; he writes that sometime later (Gk meq'hmeraj, Heb. Mymy
Cqm) is an indication of Cains tardiness.

35. See Gruber, The Tragedy of Cain and Abel, pp. 94-97, where he suggests that
Gen. 4.5b-8 describe a case of depression. What is interesting about Grubers interpretation is that it is more sympathetic to Cain.
36. See E. Hatch and H. Redpath (eds.), A Concordance to the Septuagint and Other
Greek Versions of the Old Testament (2 vols.; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1998 with index [1897]), p. 889, where possible retroversions for lupein are listed as:
lb), #$pn Mg), #$)b, ywd, hrx, b)k, bc( (niphal [twice]), Ppq (qal, hithpael), zgr, dwr
(hiphil), ((r (hiphil), (r.
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.

KIM Cain and Abel in the Light of Envy

77

eiper estin o fqonoj luph tij epi eupragai yainomenh twn eirhmenwn
agaqwn peri touj omoiouj. (Aristotle, Rhetoric 2.10.1)

While the term e0lu&phsen is not the stereotypical retroversion for rxyw, in
the context of Gen. 4.1-16 it provides a fitting translation which makes the
motive for the murder more explicit. Cain murdered Abel because he was
envious of Abels sacrifice. While it is not possible to demonstrate that the
LXX scribe was motivated by Aristotles particular understanding of e0lu&
phsen within a context of envy, it is demonstrable that such an association
would have influenced later interpreters.
b. Characterization: Conflict from Birth
The connection of e0lu&phsen (LXX Gen. 4.5) with envy facilitates what
naturally arises from the etymological associations of Cains name. According to the Hebrew text, Cains name (Nyq) is explained by Eves announcement, I have aquired a man with the [help of] Lord (t) #$y) ytynq
37
hwhy). Another etymological connection with Cains name is envy ()nq).
Etymology allows ancient interpreters and scribes to secure envy into the
Cain and Abel story through the stereotypical characterization of the two
brothers.38 In addition to the etymological suggestion that Cains name is
related to )nq (envy), hints of Cains dubious nature may be seen in Gen.
4.7 as well. Here YHWH urges Cain to do well and from this it is possible
to infer the opposite, that Cain is not good or is not doing well. This inference from v. 7 as well as the associations of Cains name with the acquisition of possessions (hnq) or with envy itself ()nq) generate a stream of
ancient interpretations which fuse envy and wickedness with the very
nature of Cain. Through the characterization of Cain, the ancient interpreters were able to establish animosity between the two brothers, thus explaining the murder without having to explain the capriciousness of YHWHs
rejection of Cains sacrifice.

37. It is also possible to read I have created a man with YHWH, but this is less
likely since it relies upon a secondary meaning of hnq.
38. The discussion of character-analysis by J. Vaccaro, Early Jewish and Christian
Interpretations of the Character of Isaac in Genesis 22 (unpublished doctoral dissertation; University of Notre Dame, 1998), pp. 7-54. Of particular interest is the distinction
made between character-analysis and personality analysis, the former places an emphasis on agency, particularly moral agency and the latter elicit[ing] something of an
empathetic response from [the] reader (p. 20). See also the discussion of stereotypes
found in Neyrey, Acts 17, Epicureans, and Theodicy, pp. 129-33.
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.

78

Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 12.1 (2001)

Character revision was a common practice in the writing of ancient biographies.39 The revision of Cains character as envious and wicked from
birth is an attempt to synthesize adult achievements with childhood into
one unified personality. The LXX follows the Hebrew etymology (hnq) of
Cains name by the use of the verb, e0kthsa&mhn. Following the Hebrew
and Greek etymology, to acquire, Josephus gives the etymology of Cains
name as acquisition (kthsij)40 and he adds a character analysis in his
gloss, Cain had been thoroughly wicked, looking only to gain (to kerdainein) (Ant. 1.53). The words to kerdainein have clear associations
with greed.41 Josephus goes on to state that Cain killed Abel because he
was angry over the fact that YHWH accepted Abels sacrifice (Ant. 1.55).
In the same vein, Philo describes the etymology of Cains name in the
following manner: Cain is called Possession, because he thinks he
possesses all things.42 This type of negative characterization emerges in
full form in the relatively late text of Exod. R. where we find the following:
It is written: He that has an evil eye hastens after riches (Prov 28:22). This
refers to Cain, who wanted to possess the whole world without delay. When
he was with his brother, as it is written: And it came to pass, when they were
in the field (Gen 4:8) one said to the other: Let us divide the world. Cain said:
You take the movable property and I will take the immovable property.
After they had divided [the world], and after Abel had taken the movable
property and Cain the immovable property, Cain thought about removing
Abel from this world. When Abel was walking around on the earth, Cain
pursued him and shouted: Get off my property! When he was walking on
the hills, Cain shouted: Get off my property! Until he finally rose up against
him and slew him (ibid.). A proof that he that has an evil eye hastens after
riches (Prov 28:22) refers to Cain, whose eye was evil upon his brother.
(Exod. R. 31.17)

This midrash brings into sharp focus the full expression of this characterization. It also severs any connection between the murder and YHWHs

39. See C. Pelling, Childhood and Personality in Greek Biography, in C. Pelling

(ed.), Characterization and Individuality in Greek Literature (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1990), pp. 213-44.
40. Josephus seems to have confused the root of Cains name )nq with the root hnq
since both are weak roots. Josephus, Ant. 1.52.
41. See Feldman, Studies in Josephus Rewritten Bible, p. 9. He writes, [i]t was
characteristic of the Stoics in antiquity to seek etymologies of proper names.
42. Philo, Sacr. 1.2. See also L.L. Grabbe, Etymology in Early Jewish Interpretation: The Hebrew Names in Philo (BJS, 115; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1988), p. 31.
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.

KIM Cain and Abel in the Light of Envy

79

capriciousness by presenting the murder exclusively as a consequence of

Cains greed over possessions.
Like Cain, Abel undergoes a similar transformation in the history of interpretation. No explicit etymology is given for Abels name, the root of
which, lbh, means vanity or futility, and it seems likely that such a
name functioned apotropaically. Philo writes that his name means sorrow
(Migr. Abr. 13), however, this etymology probably arises from a root
confusion over the first radicals in lbh and lb). A similar etymology is
given in Yashar Bereshit 9a as well.43 Unlike Cain, Abel receives little
attention in Gen. 4.1-16 and he engages in conversation neither with Cain
nor YHWH. The biblical text discloses very few details about Abel other
than (1) he was Cains younger brother (v. 2a), (2) he was a shepherd by
occupation (v. 2b), (3) his offering was regarded by YHWH, and (4) he
was murdered by his brother.44
If the wickedly envious nature of Cain is present from the very beginning through the etymological link between envy and possession, Abels
character becomes magnified into a tragic hero in later interpretations. We
see that righteousness was ascribed to Abel in several ancient sources: 1
En. 22.7; Josephus, Ant. 1.53; T. Ben. 7.4; T. Abr. 13.2-3.45 For example,
Josephus writes that the etymology of Abel is ouqen (nothing) but then
he goes on to describe him as the embodiment of Stoic virtues, namely
justice and piety.46 The righteous characterization of the slain brother is
described in the New Testament typological interpretations. Abel is presented as the first actual exemplar of faith in the Old Testament,47 and
Christ is interpreted through the typology of Abel in the Letter to the Hebrews. Both Abel (by profession) and Christ (in metaphor) are shepherds.
The plural form of Md (Kyx)-ymd, Gen. 4.11), most likely led to the New
Testament exegesis of Abel as the typological precursor to Christ since
the plural form suggests both Abels blood and the blood of his righteous
43. See Ginzburg, The Legends of the Jews: From the Creation to the Exodus (7
vols.; repr., Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998 [1925]), V, p.
135.
44. See E. van Woldes article, The Story of Cain and Abel: A Narrative Study,
JSOT 52 (1991), pp. 36-38, where she highlights the rhetorical effect of the information
about Abel.
45. See Kugel, Traditions of the Bible, p. 151.
46. Josephuss etymology for Abel is found in Ant. 1.52. On Abel as the embodiment
of Stoic virtues, see Feldman, Studies in Josephus Rewritten Bible, p. 9.
47. H. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the
Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989), p. 316.
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.

80

Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 12.1 (2001)

progeny.48 The interpretation that the blood of Abel lives even after his
death is linked to the use of the present participle form, Myq(c (Gen.
4.11) instead of the perfect form.49 Among Christian interpreters, this was
then taken to be a sign of the life after death; the resurrection of Christ.50
The shedding of blood as an expiation for sins is exegetically linked to the
murder of Abel with the interpretation that Abel is the prototypical martyr.
Such an interpretation appears in Heb. 11.4, which records a distinguished
list of ancient ancestors that begins with Abel and continues with Enoch,
Noah, Abraham and Moses,51 and escalates to Jesus himself. In many ways
the character of Abel takes on an apologetic function for the author of
Hebrews since Abel demonstrates that it is not unprecedented for Gods
chosen and favored one to die an undeserved and unjust death; it is fitting
that salvation history both begins and ends with such unjust deaths.
Abels righteousness and Cains wickedness become stereotypical characterizations in many ancient interpretations which serves an exegetical
function of deflecting attention away from the issue of the sacrifices and
YHWHs seeming capriciousness. The murder becomes a consequence of
a conflict between good and evil and is no longer presented as the consequence of Cains anger over YHWHs rejection of his sacrifice.
c. Legendary Accretions
According to sociological studies, the closer two siblings are in age, the
greater the rivalry between them. Some ancient interpretations locate the
motive for the murder of Abel within a context of sibling rivalry over
goods that are not related to the issue of sacrifice.

48. The Targums also contain the interpretation that Abels death includes his own
and the death of his future progeny and testifies to the belief that a murderer is guilty,
not only of the death of one just man, but also of the denial of life to all his righteous
posterity, see Vermes, The Targumic Versions of Genesis 4:3-16, p. 117.
49. The Rabbis interpreted this as a sign that it was not just Abel who perished, but
also all of his unborn progeny. See Gen. R. 22.9.
50. See T. Kronholm, Motifs from Genesis 111 in the Genuine Hymns of Ephrem
the Syrian With Particular Reference to the Influence of Jewish Exegetical Tradition
(ConBOT, 11; Uppsala: C.W.K. Gleerup, 1978), pp. 145-49; J. Frishman, Themes on
Genesis 15 in Early East-Syrian Exegesis, in J. Frishman and L. van Rompay (eds.),
The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation: A Collection of
Essays (Traditio Exegetica Graeca, 5; Leuven: Peeters, 1997), pp. 171-86.
51. Hebrews 11.32-40 then goes on to mention briefly Gideon, Barak, Samson,
Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets and others.
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.

KIM Cain and Abel in the Light of Envy

81

The proximity in age between Cain and Abel is not explicitly stated in
the Hebrew text. The biblical text does, however, emphasize the familial
relationship between the two through the repeated use of the word x)
(brother).52 The births of Cain and Abel are brought into close proximity
by later Jewish interpreters and scribes. Their proximity in age is recorded
in Jubilees53 and in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan which states, she went
on to bear from Adam, her husband, his twin sister and Abel.54 Josephus
makes no explicit time distinction between the two and writes simply,
two male children were born to them (Ginontai de autov paidev arrenev duo).55 Some interpretations explicitly present Cain and Abel as having
been born at the same time. In Genesis Rabbah it is written that,
wytwmw)t yt#$w lbhw wtmw)tw Nyq h(b#$ wdryw Myn#$ h+ml wl(

A pair went to bed and emerged as seven: Cain and his twin sister and Abel
and his two twin sisters. (Gen. R. 22.2)

The tradition that Cain and Abel were of close proximal age creates a situation that would have aggravated the rivalry between the two according to
sociological studies.56
In addition to their closeness in age, rivalry over a woman explicitly
introduces the theme of envy by providing a limited good element. Since
the begetting of children is not a solitary enterprise, and given the genealogical record from Gen. 4.17-22 of Cains descendants, ancient interpreters felt that it was necessary to account for Cains wife and reproductive
partner.57 The author of Jubilees writes, In the third week in the second
52. The word x) appears seven times in Gen. 4.1-16 with six references in the
verses which deal with the fratricide and its aftermath (Gen. 4.8-11).
53. Jubilees 2.61, translated by J.C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubilees (CSCO,
511, Scriptores Aethiopici, 88; Leuven: Peeters, 1989).
54. Translation taken from J. Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature: An
Introduction to Jewish Interpretations of Scripture (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1969), p. 132.
55. Josephus (Ant. 1.52) agrees with MT which states that Cain was older.
56. Once again, see Schoeck, Envy, p. 79, where he describes the practice among
the Sioux Indians of creating a barrier of time between the birth of one child and the
next as proof of that childs favored status. The rationale is that a greater separation in
age will assuage feelings of rivalry among siblings and thus close proximity in age
aggravates feelings of rivalry.
57. For a complete listing of the twin traditions related to Cain and Abel, see Glenthj, Cain and Abel in Syriac and Greek Writers, p. 4. Not all of them will be treated in
this article for obvious reasons. While the twin tradition also appears in PRE 21,
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.

82

Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 12.1 (2001)

jubilee [years 64-70], she gave birth to Cain; in the fourth [71-77] she
gave birth to Abel; and in the fifth [78-84] she gave birth to his daughter
Awan (Jub. 4.1). Since only one daughter was born to Adam and Eve prior
to Abels murder, the author of Jubilees seems to have assumed that the
murder arose as a consequence of Cains struggle to possess Awan, the
sole mate available. Pseudo-Philo, usually dated at approximately 70 CE,58
also contains the tradition that Adam and Eve had only one daughter, but
she is named Noaba in this source.59
After the death of Abel and the removal of the rival for the only reproductive mate available, Jubilees records that in the sixth week Eve gave
birth to another daughter who was named Azura (Jub. 4.8). It seems likely
that this detail gave rise to the tradition that each brother was born with a
twin sister. Later interpreters harmonize Azura with the first daughter. The
tradition of a twin sister for both Cain and Abel is preserved in many
sources. In addition to Josephus (Ant. 1.52) and Genesis Rabbah, the
Western Recension of the Syriac Cave of Treasures states that there were
twin sisters for both Cain and Abel. In this text, the murder of Abel directly follows from this tradition of twin sisters:
And she conceived and gave birth to Cain and Lebudah his sister with him,
twins in one womb. And again she conceived and gave birth to Abel and
Qelimata his sister, in one womb. And when the youths grew up, Adam said
to Eve, Let Cain take Qelimata who was born with Abel [as a wife] and
Abel, Lebudah who was born with Cain. But Cain said to his mother, I am
taking my sister, and Abel is taking his sister because Lebuda was amazingly striking in her beauty and appealing and desirable in her appearance
And it happened that when they went up, Adam the first priest and Cain and
Abel to the top of the mountain, Satan entered into Cain so that he should
kill his brother on account of Lebudah. (Cave of Treasures 5.19-22, 27)60

according to Glenthj, the twin tradition is a Jewish phenomenon which never flourished in Christian literature.
58. Whether it was written before or after the destruction is somewhat disputed. See
G.W.E. Nickelsburg, The Bible Rewritten and Expanded, in M. Stone (ed.), Jewish
Writings of the Second Temple Period (CRINT, 2; Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1984), p. 109.
59. See Pseudo-Philo, LAB 1.1, in H. Jacobsen, A Commentary on Pseudo-Philos
Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum: With Latin Text and English Translation (2 vols.;
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996), I, p. 282. Jacobsen suggests that this may be a corruption of
hm(n and that harmonization has occurred with Cains sisters name and the name of
the biblical sister of Tubal-Cain (Gen. 4.22).
60. My translation. For the critical edition of Cave of Treasures, see S. Ri, La
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.

KIM Cain and Abel in the Light of Envy

83

In Genesis Rabbah we find another expression of this motif of envy over a

woman. According to this tradition, the murder was triggered by a struggle
to possess one of the twin sisters.
According to R. Huna, an extra twin was born with Abel. This one says
[Cain], I will take her because I am the first born! And the other says, I
will take her for she was born with me! and in the midst of it all, Cain rose
up against his brother and killed him. (Gen. R. 22.7)61

A similar explanation found in the Testament of Adam states, a Flood is

coming and will wash the whole earth because of the daughters of Cain,
your brother, who killed your brother Abel out of passion for your sister
Lebuda (T. Adam 3.5).62
These interpretations illustrate that the twin tradition was an attempt by
early interpreters to anchor envious conflict between Cain and Abel apart
from the issue of their sacrifices. The twin sister becomes the commodity
that Cain struggles to possess and his envious nature drives him to kill his
rival brother, Abel. The limited good changes from YHWHs favor in the
biblical narrative to the possession of a woman in the twin legends.
The function of these twin legends is to deflect attention away from
Gods seemingly capricious decision to regard Abels sacrifice and to
refuse Cains sacrifice. If envy and rivalry are heightened by a close proximity, the twin legends provide a situation of conflict and envy by introducing a close proximate age for the two brothers. If rivalry occurs between
a perceived limited good, then the twin legends also provide a limited
commodity for the brothers to rival, namely the twin sisters.
5. Tentative Conclusions
Genesis 4.1-16 exhibits continuity with the pattern of fratricide and
rivalry that has its origins in the human condition and experience of envy.
The narrative poses two major problems to the reader: Gods capriciousness
Caverne des Trsors: Les deux recensions syriaques (CSCO, 207; Leuven: Peeters,
1987), p. 42.
61. This text is a source for many early interpretations of the book of Genesis. It is
said that this work received its final redaction around the end of the fourth century CE.
On the issue of twin sisters, it contains a number of different traditions, one of which
states that, two came up on the bed and went down as seven: Cain and his twin sister
and Abel and his two twin sisters (Gen. R. 22.2).
62. Here following the translation appearing in OTP, I, p. 994.
The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.

84

Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 12.1 (2001)

and the absence of interaction between the brothers. Ancient interpreters

introduce elements to resolve theological problems that are implied by
YHWHs rejection of Cains sacrifice. Ancient exegetes magnify elements
of sibling rivalry and envy in order to provide the necessary situation of
conflict between the brothers. By so doing, the ancients deflect attention
away from YHWH and the problem of Gods capriciousness. Through translation techniques, characterizations and the incorporation of legendary
accretions, the story is reshaped by the magnification of envy during the
post-biblical period and emerges anew as a tale of envious rivalry between
good and evil. The grave theological problem of Gods capriciousness
diminishes as rivalry and envy between the brothers is magnified.

The Continuum Publishing Group Ltd 2002.